Wiki Sudden Loss Of Range With 2019.16.x Software

[Ferrycraigs]

Must have missed that one. That changes things. I shall have to locate it. It’s important.

As there are SO many posts on here, and so many variations, I am conscious my memory and recollection is untrustworthy. So this list of quotes is primarily so I can have a record, in one place, of what I think are the important or relevant bits.

I’ve found some of the quotes, but none of them seem to tally exactly with your recollection, so I may have missed one or two. To provide balance, I do remember he once posted that he “hadn’t said there wasn’t a safety issue”. He hadn’t. But of course a pedant (me) would point out that doesn’t mean the absence of such a statement means there is one (a safety issue). Just that he hadn’t said there wasn’t one. Yes I appreciate that’s pedantic, but it’s still true.

In chronological order, my records have him saying:
1. “Specifically my understanding is that the change was a pro-active measure to detect a very uncommon long term failure mode of the battery. [I think he is talking Dendrites here]. The conditions they were testing for didn’t appear to exist in any battery in the fleet. [ie no dendrites found] but adding a check and mitigation was to be a preventative safety measure.” [I think this may be the first mention of 'safety' but I don't read it to mean it’s a safety issue.]

2. “if you have a car with an 85 Type pack (85 or 70) then you should probably update IF (my emphasis) you either Supercharge a lot, charge to 100% often, or both”.

3. “I am not saying your car is going to explode or otherwise have other issues if you don’t update... but I do believe that what is being detected is an issue that will eventually need to be addressed ... whether or not there is a safety issue involved”

4. From the famous Condition X Condition Z post “The people with a Rapid Range Loss have Condition Z”.

5. “I specifically asked why don't they pull the update until they get a better grip on the situation, and was told if the update is protecting owners as it is “we'll deal with it” in order to keep safety first.” [I accept this is a bit ambiguous. Personally I don’t read 'protecting owners' as protecting from danger].

6. “I've never said anyone’s cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just Condition X or Z would have to happen.... (my emphasis). They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, Supercharging, leaving the car in the sun etc)”. [I don’t find any of these ambiguous].

7. “By not applying the update you’re accepting that slightly elevated risk of failure.... From what I’ve gathered the number of people who could possibly still be affected by Condition X or Z (ie have not updated) is less than 100”.

So from all of those statements, I read the thrust to be there is not a safety angle. Particularly because of the bits I have written in bold, I don’t think there is a danger of fire, and that the risk of a fire is less than engaging ludicrous+ or filling an ICE car with fuel. But to be clear that is my personal understanding of what has been said. Others may view the statements in a different light. And it is obvious that many people don’t share my interpretation. I am absolutely not saying my interpretation is the correct one, just that that’s how I see it.

 

[raphy3]

If you were posting complaints about the fires, I’d agree with you. Tesla addressed that with the BMS changes.

What people are complaining about is the consequence of that rectified safety issue—the disappointment that range, charging speed, and regen has been capped. That’s not a safety issue.

That is a daft interpretation of the current state of affairs. There is no evidence anywhere that the safety issues have even been resolved. You seem to just be trusting that software updates, with no release notes stating they were intended to fix safety issues, have somehow fixed safety issues. If people believe they have a safety issue in their cars due to fires happening early this year, they should report the issue to NHTSA. Also, if the BMS fix caused a resultant loss in range via voltage capping, this lowered the cars' range retroactively. This is also the NHTSA's purview, and owners that are afraid their range is being tampered with should report it to the NHTSA. Go check out the first post.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

I thought this has already been established.

You lost 10kWh by voltage capping of your pack. If your charging voltage is increased beyond the safe upper cell voltage of your pack (especially if your pack has faulty cells), you have two problems: 1) Lithium Plating and, 2) Overheating. The overheating is a fire risk.

Who ever said my charging voltage was increased beyond the safe upper Cell Voltage of the pack? Has someone said 4.2V is unsafe? Surely that cant be correct else Tesla would have capped every single battery.

I am very happy to agree my pack has very likely got faulty cells. Does that make them more prone to Li Plating or overheating? Perhaps. I thought the most likely cause of both was the power level during Charging rather than the health of the cells. That may explain why I’m not making the same connections as you.

 

[raphy3]

5. “I specifically asked why don't they pull the update until they get a better grip on the situation, and was told if the update is protecting owners as it is “we'll deal with it” in order to keep safety first.” [I accept this is a bit ambiguous. Personally I don’t read 'protecting owners' as protecting from danger]

On this part I have a slight disagreement. The Tesla rep told wk057 that Tesla is putting "safety first" and is "protecting owners". "Protecting" can be ambiguous, but used in the same sentence as putting safety first, I come away with a solid understanding that Tesla put out an update for safety purposes and that they won't yank it even though it sucks because it's helping to address safety or make the cars safer somehow.

The problem is that it's second hand info from wk057. At this point he's proven to be well less than a reliable narrator (in this specific thread) and frankly his posts haven't helped anything in here with their large quantities of ambiguity and "read between the lines of what I'm saying, people" style. (I'm pretty bad at reading the right thing between the lines from people I don't know well.)

 

[Droschke]

As there are SO many posts on here, and so many variations, I am conscious my memory and recollection is untrustworthy. So this list of quotes is primarily so I can have a record, in one place, of what I think are the important or relevant bits.

I’ve found some of the quotes, but none of them seem to tally exactly with your recollection, so I may have missed one or two. To provide balance, I do remember he once posted that he “hadn’t said there wasn’t a safety issue”. He hadn’t. But of course a pedant (me) would point out that doesn’t mean the absence of such a statement means there is one (a safety issue). Just that he hadn’t said there wasn’t one. Yes I appreciate that’s pedantic, but it’s still true.

In chronological order, my records have him saying:
1. “Specifically my understanding is that the change was a pro-active measure to detect a very uncommon long term failure mode of the battery. [I think he is talking Dendrites here]. The conditions they were testing for didn’t appear to exist in any battery in the fleet. [ie no dendrites found] but adding a check and mitigation was to be a preventative safety measure.” [I think this may be the first mention of 'safety' but I don't read it to mean it’s a safety issue.]

2. “if you have a car with an 85 Type pack (85 or 70) then you should probably update IF (my emphasis) you either Supercharge a lot, charge to 100% often, or both”.

3. “I am not saying your car is going to explode or otherwise have other issues if you don’t update... but I do believe that what is being detected is an issue that will eventually need to be addressed ... whether or not there is a safety issue involved”

4. From the famous Condition X Condition Z post “The people with a Rapid Range Loss have Condition Z”.

5. “I specifically asked why don't they pull the update until they get a better grip on the situation, and was told if the update is protecting owners as it is “we'll deal with it” in order to keep safety first.” [I accept this is a bit ambiguous. Personally I don’t read 'protecting owners' as protecting from danger].

6. “I've never said anyone’s cars were going to burst into flames or anything. For that to happen, more failures than just Condition X or Z would have to happen.... (my emphasis). They're both just additional risk factors when looking at overall failure possibilities, neither of which will cause something catastrophic on its own and neither of which is any more of a problem than some aspects of general use (charging to 100%, Supercharging, leaving the car in the sun etc)”. [I don’t find any of these ambiguous].

7. “By not applying the update you’re accepting that slightly elevated risk of failure.... From what I’ve gathered the number of people who could possibly still be affected by Condition X or Z (ie have not updated) is less than 100”.

So from all of those statements, I read the thrust to be there is not a safety angle. Particularly because of the bits I have written in bold, I don’t think there is a danger of fire, and that the risk of a fire is less than engaging ludicrous+ or filling an ICE car with fuel. But to be clear that is my personal understanding of what has been said. Others may view the statements in a different light. And it is obvious that many people don’t share my interpretation. I am absolutely not saying my interpretation is the correct one, just that that’s how I see it.

So, if you believe they not safety and fire related then explain why your car is voltage capped, chargegated and zero regened at this time?

 

[Chaserr]

The problem is that it's second hand info from wk057. At this point he's prevent to be well less than a reliable narrator and frankly his posts haven't helped anything in here with their large quantities of ambiguity and "read between the lines of what I'm saying, people" style. (I'm pretty bad at reading the right thing between the lines from people I don't know well.)

Legally speaking it's not a safety measure until the NHTSA approves it. They are supposed to be notified within 5 days of a company learning about potential risks, and the NHTSA then contacts owners if they decide actions must be taken.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

So, if you believe they not safety and fire related then explain why your car is voltage capped, chargegated and zero regened at this time?

As I have posted previously, I believe I have been voltage capped, and charge rate capped, because I have cells that are wearing out much faster than expected, and that capping and throttling makes it more likely my battery will outlast the 8 year Warranty. I have never reported that I have been regen limited, because I don’t have that problem.

 

[DJRas]

This is the first time after capping you can charge to 100%, right? Also let us know how long the pump runs and how many miles of range wasted. Thanks.

Yes, this is the first successful charge to 100% since October.
The pumps have stopped running after 5 hours. Now at 217 miles and 97%.
While they were running it was plugged in but drawing no power from the HPWC.

 

[Droschke]

Who ever said my charging voltage was increased beyond the safe upper Cell Voltage of the pack? Has someone said 4.2V is unsafe?

I am very happy to agree my pack has very likely got faulty cells. Does that make them more prone to Li Plating or overheating? Perhaps.

If you have faulty cells, yes, it is unsafe. The cells overheats. Overheating results in fire.

I thought the most likely cause of both was the power level during Charging rather than the health of the cells. That may explain why I’m not making the same connections as you.

Correct that you are not making the same connections. You charge a faulty cell to 4.2v, you overheat the cell.

 

[DJRas]

Who ever said my charging voltage was increased beyond the safe upper Cell Voltage of the pack? Has someone said 4.2V is unsafe? Surely that cant be correct else Tesla would have capped every single battery.

I am very happy to agree my pack has very likely got faulty cells. Does that make them more prone to Li Plating or overheating? Perhaps. I thought the most likely cause of both was the power level during Charging rather than the health of the cells. That may explain why I’m not making the same connections as you.

Since the fires happened to cars that were not charging the capping does not appear to be related to fast charging directly. But instead it is probably a newly detected defect.

 

[Ferrycraigs]

On this part I have a slight disagreement. The Tesla rep told wk057 that Tesla is putting "safety first" and is "protecting owners". "Protecting" can be ambiguous, but used in the same sentence as putting safety first, I come away with a solid understanding that Tesla put out an update for safety purposes and that they won't yank it even though it sucks because it's helping to address safety or make the cars safer somehow.

The problem is that it's second hand info from wk057. At this point he's proven to be well less than a reliable narrator (in this specific thread) and frankly his posts haven't helped anything in here with their large quantities of ambiguity and "read between the lines of what I'm saying, people" style. (I'm pretty bad at reading the right thing between the lines from people I don't know well.)

I can absolutely see how you, or anyone, could arrive at that conclusion, and it’s certainly one I considered. It is an ambiguous statement. And I agree wk057's veiled speech doesn’t make deciphering any easier. It’s all still speculation and interpretation by us. Ironically we might all be wide of the mark.

 

[Droschke]

wearing out much faster than expected,

What does "wearing out" mean to you? You have no safety concern with your cells wearing out much faster than expected? Oh, boy!

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Since the fires happened to cars that were not charging the capping does not appear to be related to fast charging directly. But instead it is probably a newly detected defect.

My take is that DCFC was wearing out the cells prematurely, and Tesla's answer to that issue, was putting the battery in a less stressful environment, ie capping (and of course charge rate strangling).

 

[Ferrycraigs]

Since the fires happened to cars that were not charging the capping does not appear to be related to fast charging directly. But instead it is probably a newly detected defect.

My take is that DCFC was wearing out the cells prematurely, and Tesla's answer to that issue, was putting the battery in a less stressful environment, ie capping (and of course charge rate strangling).

What does "wearing out" mean to you? You have no safety concern with your cells wearing out much faster than expected? Oh, boy!

OK I’m going to stop responding after this one. I don’t have a non standard interpretation of Wearing out. Specifically a reducing ability to hold a charge. I do not have a safety concern. I can’t see a safety issue related to a battery wearing out earlier than expected. Inconvenient yes. Expensive certainly. Do I see myself in any danger from it? No.

 

[David99]

Insane. If that is their solution to mitigate whatever is going on, a new battery should definitely be in order. As you know, I give Tesla the benefit of the doubt, but this is really getting crazy. Do you know if the compressor is also running? This kind of usage will drastically reduce its life.

I have been keeping an eye on it. In warm weather (90 F) the AC compressor is running for about 30 min, sometimes longer. I lose about 11 miles of range. The stupid part is when you supercharge and it gets to a high state of charge, it sometimes does not start the extra cooling process. Only *after* you unplug does it start. As if Tesla wants to make sure you are not using available shore power.

 

[Chaserr]

Tesla sees a danger otherwise we wouldn't be in the mess. Repercussions to what they did could topple the company. I'm just glad the safety administration is feeling generous, Tesla should move fast to come clean while Mercedes is on their minds.

 

[Droschke]

As if Tesla wants to make sure you are not using available shore power

That's the part I do not understand. May be to drain the battery to what they think is a safe threshold?

 

[Chaserr]

May be to drain the battery to what they think is a safe threshold?

To decrease as much power from the battery as possible.

Look at everything from this perspective and it all comes together. Everything is aimed at decreasing the amount of energy the battery actually contains, and putting as little as possible back into it.

Since we are still seeing things like regen and battery heating reduced, I will go farther and predict that if more side effects are introduced, they will fit this pattern of reducing the overall amount of battery energy stored. Tesla seems to be trying to decrease pack energy from every possible angle.

 

[kavyboy]

I have been keeping an eye on it. In warm weather (90 F) the AC compressor is running for about 30 min, sometimes longer. I lose about 11 miles of range. The stupid part is when you supercharge and it gets to a high state of charge, it sometimes does not start the extra cooling process. Only *after* you unplug does it start. As if Tesla wants to make sure you are not using available shore power.

I suspect they're running the battery down. Turning on the heat would be too obvious.

 

[Droschke]

To decrease as much power from the battery as possible.

Look at everything from this perspective and it all comes together. Everything is aimed at decreasing the amount of energy the battery actually contains, and putting as little as possible back into it.

Since we are still seeing things like regen and battery heating reduced, I will go farther and predict that if more side effects are introduced, they will fit this pattern of reducing the overall amount of battery energy stored. Tesla seems to be trying to decrease pack energy from every possible angle.

Safety concern written all over it.